If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Conservatives support charities far more than Liberals do, if the Liberals would stop trying to spend other people’s money and start donating some of their own to charities this wouldn’t be an issue. It doesn’t change the fact that charities are far more effective with the money they do get compared to the government and the amount of money it gets.

…so no one who was in poverty received medical treatment prior to the creation of Medicaid? Sounds like I am not the one living in a fantasy land here. Everyone knows that a private organization will utilize the money they donate to it far more efficiently and effectively than the same amount of money donated to the government. The government is slow and out of date.

Well not all non-profits are charities, but it doesn’t change the fact that the money they do receive goes to far better use than it would with a giant bloated government entitlement program like Medicaid.

Now we are getting into classic ultraconservative boilerplate that is mostly based on fallacy.

Medicaid Budget 2012
612 billion
Total Money Given to Charities in 2009
300 billion
So if you collected every penny that people gave to Charities you would still be dramatically short. Not to mention I doubt that folks would be happy about all their money going to one place. Regardless that sounds a lot like taxation.
Also these collections are spread out over thousands of different groups. How anyone would imagine collecting this to be used as some sort of functional block? It would be akin to mass chaos.

In regards to your other point...
...the old argument. If we only went back to the good ol' days when you could pay a doctor with eggs or a pie, everything would be fine and dandy.

Allow me to throw some facts at you.
Infant Mortality
1935- about 55 per 1000 births
Now- about 7 per 1000 births
A dramatic accomplishment that is in no small part to providing poor folks access to care.
Now people made up for it by having about twice as many babies in those days. Of course this tied up women to essentially child production and rearing.

Finally to your arguments about how charities/private firms are more efficient at delivering care to patients than the goverment is almost like a theological argument difficult to argue.

But I will leave you with this.
The US has socialized universal government run healthcare system. It is the VA.
The RAND corporation did a study on comparing the costs of delivering healthcare in the VA vs. Private.
THE VA WAS CHEAPER!

2.You are selectively pro-death, you support the death of babies in the womb but not the death of capital murderers

I've never been able to understand the mindset that thinks nothing of killing (murdering?) 50,000,000 innocent humans (or potential humans) but does fret about each guilty person that is sentenced to death.

“I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."

Why is it so hard for people to understand that it's not government services for the truly needy that others object to, but the waste, inefficiency and amount of money spent on those gaming the system?

I would not be surprised if private charities could help 3 or 4 times as many people with $300,000,000,000 than the government helps with $612,000,000,000

Why is it so hard for people to understand that it's not government services for the truly needy that others object to, but the waste, inefficiency and amount of money spent on those gaming the system?

I would not be surprised if private charities could help 3 or 4 times as many people with $300,000,000,000 than the government helps with $612,000,000,000

I have news for you. Charities can get "gamed" just as much as the gov't. I actually know someone right now who is a getting a free $20,000 from a private charity for a down payment on their new home by lying about his income. That would be even more true if charities took over the responsibilities that the gov't currently handles. No one, dem or rep, is happy about waste, inefficiency, and people gaming the system. But anyone with business knowledge realizes that large operations naturally create waste and inefficiency. It's just a natural byproduct that we unfortunately have to deal with.

The only reason why most private charities can run so efficiently is due to their small size. Burden them with the tasks of the gov't, give them $300,000,000,000, and they'll be just as inefficient as the gov't.

All that matters in terms of abortion to me is that the mother should have complete control of what happens to her body.

I completely agree! Although that has nothing to do with abortion since the fetus is not part of the mother’s body.

Nobody should be able to force the mother to do anything they don't want to.

According to whom? If a mother wants to kill her child I am sorry but I am all for forcing her not to do that.

Originally Posted by trojanma

Now we are getting into classic ultraconservative boilerplate that is mostly based on fallacy.

Originally Posted by trojanma

Medicaid Budget 2012 612 billionTotal Money Given to Charities in 2009300 billionSo if you collected every penny that people gave to Charities you would still be dramatically short. Not to mention I doubt that folks would be happy about all their money going to one place. Regardless that sounds a lot like taxation.Also these collections are spread out over thousands of different groups. How anyone would imagine collecting this to be used as some sort of functional block? It would be akin to mass chaos.

I am not sure what you are even trying to say; I’d rather see that 612 billion go to charities or back into the economy so people can donate more to charities, they do better work.

In regards to your other point...

...the old argument. If we only went back to the good ol' days when you could pay a doctor with eggs or a pie, everything would be fine and dandy.

That was not my argument and you know it.

Allow me to throw some facts at you.

Infant Mortality1935- about 55 per 1000 birthsNow- about 7 per 1000 births

Where is your proof that is due to Medicaid? I think it’s due to advancements in nutrition and medical science.

A dramatic accomplishment that is in no small part to providing poor folks access to care.

Proof? What was the mortality rate the year before Medicaid was instituted (1965 I believe) and the year after it was instituted (1967)? .

Finally to your arguments about how charities/private firms are more efficient at delivering care to patients than the goverment is almost like a theological argument difficult to argue.

But I will leave you with this. The US has socialized universal government run healthcare system. It is the VA. The RAND corporation did a study on comparing the costs of delivering healthcare in the VA vs. Private. THE VA WAS CHEAPER!

Of course the VA is cheaper; the quality of care is greatly inferior to that of private organizations. I know a man who had an infection in his leg, he went to the VA and they were going to amputate his leg. He got a second opinion from a private doctor and the doctor simply cured the infection and he’s fine now.

Originally Posted by GoFins!

One difference is that private charities will not force us to pay them more money next year to cover all the money they wasted this year.

You nailed it, again. Private organizations have a vested interest in cracking down on waste, the government doesn’t, they will just demand more of our money next year to make up the lost ground. Government is the problem, not the solution.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints